Anonymous Said...
Well Joe.....this was a travesty. You know I love what you do but with the freedom you exercise with this blog comes great responsibility. We talked about this some until we got sidetracked. (Imagine that). This is something you really need to think about. By your own admission your blog reaches many. Even those whom it doesn't reach directly are reached by word of mouth. I would proffer that no one on that jury hadn't heard about that case prior to trial. Then we add the fact that blogs are more popular because people can comment with anonymity without responsibility. Many of these comments are made by people who write as if they are authorities on legal matters yet have nothing more than an opinion. 99% of the time these opinions are rendered with no legal knowledge yet are viewed by most (who are likely followers rather than leaders) as if they were gospel. Rommel played a scumbag lawyer trick and used you as a way to get his side of the story out to the public knowing that it would be tried in the court of public opinion way before the jury ever heard the case. I would bet that his plan the entire time was to play the media - in this case your blog - and then pray jury trial knowing that any jury pool would be tainted. In my opinion he manipulated the entire system and Sbynews to bring about a very calculated result. He intentionally released video to you knowing you would post it. He also knew he was going to use these videos as evidence when he released them to you. To me, this shows the underbelly of an individual who is not a good attorney, but rather an attorney with no moral compass.
Now.......to all these roadside attorneys speaking of lawsuits who are obviously members of the group who know nothing of that which they speak but writes as if they are authorities......you completely misunderstand the implications that the different burden of proof thresholds required to make specific cases. For the purposes of this discussion the burden of proof for probable cause (that which is needed to file charges) was met as indicated by the impartial judicial officer for the district court. That means enough evidence exists to charge the defendants and bring the case to trial. If we had to assign a percentage amount to this level of proof we could attach a number of about 51%. The number needed to convict using the same scale is about 99%. Now....the number needed to win a civil case would be commonly called a preponderance of the evidence.....about 51% if using the same type of number assignment scale. In a nutshell this means that it has been already established that the officer in this case had enough evidence to arrest and bring charges....but according to a jury...not enough to convict. (Arguably) however if the defendants in this case argue that the officer didn't have enough evidence to arrest and that the arrest was false......the contrary has already been established.
